Masonic Rites = Temple Signs

[John Williams]

The FAIR wiki article is a good place to start, but it does not necessarily give the best possible answer.

http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Temple_endow...and_Freemasonry

There is indeed a connection, but most anti-Mormons and LDS alike misunderstand the nature of that connection.

For the simple fact that God Himself said He would PROVIDE Joseph Smith with every temple ordinance (see D&C 124).

That is a fact.

Yes, but very few are EXACTLY the same (see Heber C. Kimballâ??s statement on this idea).

Personal belief is very different from verifiable evidence. And Iâ??m quite sure that there is no first-hand statement from Joseph Smith in which he acknowledges that he â??took . . . and adapted [Masonic rites] to an LDS purpose.â? Please feel free to prove me wrong on this point.

Youâ??re dead wrong . . . and I CAN prove it.

OK, I'll bite. Please prove me dead wrong (wow, that sounds dramatic). Section 124 suggests that these are the same ordinances that were given to Moses and performed in the tabernacle. I've never heard anyone, LDS or otherwise, argue that what we know as the endowment and the other ceremonies were performed in the ancient tabernacle. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

In D&C 124 God says that they are from Him AND He says they are ancient.

Then why does God say right in D&C 124 that He is going to supply those very things FOR Joseph Smith?

CFR

You state this as if it were a FACT. Please provide specific evidence to support your THEORY. Are you seriously claiming that Joseph Smith modified Masonic rites in order to â??meet [God] the Fatherâ??s needsâ???? Since Godâ??s temple rites are designed to exalt individuals in His kingdom please explain how Joseph Smithâ??s alleged use of a non-divine system of recognizing a qualified stonecutter helped God to bestow exaltation on anyone. And please provide reliable documentation to support your claim.

Architectural motifs are NOT in the same category as the revealed rituals practiced within the walls of the building.

Are you suggesting that it's only in architectural motifs that the two rituals are similar?

It seems to me that you have two choices:

1. The Masonic rites are corrupted versions of ancient temple ritual, which Joseph restored.

2. Joseph adapted the rituals of the Masons to fulfill God's purposes.

[Helorum]

John W: "Section 124 suggests that these are the same ordinances that were given to Moses and performed in the tabernacle."

There is no 'suggestion' about it . . . the Lord states it as a fact.

You missed the part of D&C 124 that ALSO says they were practiced in the temple of Solomon (vs. 38).

Tabernacle of Moses = initiation ordinances of priests (which took place in temple / the tabernacle was just a portable temple).

Temple of Solomon = initiation ordinances of kings (which took place in the temple).

The LDS temple rites are unmistakably connected with these two categories.

John W: "I've never heard anyone, LDS or otherwise, argue that what we know as the endowment and the other ceremonies were performed in the ancient tabernacle."

You evidently travel in a very small circle of "LDS" associates.

http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=3907640

[John Williams]

There is no 'suggestion' about it . . . the Lord states it as a fact.

You missed the part of D&C 124 that ALSO says they were practiced in the temple of Solomon (vs. 38).

Tabernacle of Moses = initiation ordinances of priests (which took place in temple / the tabernacle was just a portable temple).

Temple of Solomon = initiation ordinances of kings (which took place in the temple).

The LDS temple rites are unmistakably connected with these two categories.

You evidently travel in a very small circle of "LDS" associates.

http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=3907640

Yes, I've led a sheltered life. I'm going to have to adjust my thinking (some might say I don't do much thinking). Even when I was actively attending the temple, I never thought these were ancient ceremonies. They seem too closely tied to medieval guild ritual. Not even the Masons claim ancient origins anymore.

[cinepro]

There is no 'suggestion' about it . . . the Lord states it as a fact.

You missed the part of D&C 124 that ALSO says they were practiced in the temple of Solomon (vs. 38).

Tabernacle of Moses = initiation ordinances of priests (which took place in temple / the tabernacle was just a portable temple).

Temple of Solomon = initiation ordinances of kings (which took place in the temple).

Exactly which version of the Temple Ceremonies were practiced anciently? The 1844 version? 1879? 1922? 1965? 1991? 2006? 2030? Or were only the elements common to all versions also practiced anciently?

For me, it isn't interesting to ask whether Joseph borrowed Masonic elements in the introduction of the Temple ceremonies.

No, I find it more interesting to wonder what the Temple would be like if Joseph hadn't been a Mason at all, but instead was a Rotarian? Would we meet once a week for lunch and do service projects instead of endowments?

[Helorum]

John W: "They seem too closely tied to medieval guild ritual."

So ask yourself the next important questions . . . . . Who comprised the medieval stonemason guilds who built the cathedrals and who supervised their work and gave them their knowledge? Hint . . . think of a major religious organization.

John W: "Not even the Masons claim ancient origins anymore."

There are currently TEN different theories of origin for Masonic esoteric knowledge and some of these theories do indeed claim an ancient origin.

But so what??? The Lord told Joseph Smith He was going to restore the ancient ordinances practiced in the Tabernacle of Jehovah built by Moses and the Temple of Jehovah built by Solomon.

Even if the claim of the Freemasons isn't technically true (i.e., 'We go all the way back to the temple of Solomon') they did inherit esoteric knowledge through the dominant Christian religion that claims to go all the way back to the time of Jesus Christ. And the LDS Church teaches that there have been several restorations and apostasies since the time of Adam.

[John Williams]

So ask yourself the next important questions . . . . . Who comprised the medieval stonemason guilds who built the cathedrals and who supervised their work and gave them their knowledge? Hint . . . think of a major religious organization.

There are currently TEN different theories of origin for Masonic esoteric knowledge and some of these theories do indeed claim an ancient origin.

But so what??? The Lord told Joseph Smith He was going to restore the ancient ordinances practiced in the Tabernacle of Jehovah built by Moses and the Temple of Jehovah built by Solomon.

Even if the claim of the Freemasons isn't technically true (i.e., 'We go all the way back to the temple of Solomon') they did inherit esoteric knowledge through the dominant Christian religion that claims to go all the way back to the time of Jesus Christ. And the LDS Church teaches that there have been several restorations and apostasies from the time of Adam.

I suppose it would matter if I thought Joseph Smith was a prophet. Even then, I'm learning that there are people who are much more literal in their thinking than I ever was as a believer.

[livy111us]

I have a feeling I'm REALLY going to enjoy this conversation.

[Helorum]

Exactly which version of the Temple Ceremonies were practiced anciently?

The very same core elements of the endowment (as defined by Brigham Young) can be plainly seen among the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians (confirmed by non-LDS scholars).

I have a feeling I'm REALLY going to enjoy this conversation.

Just wait until the next FAIR conference!

[Helorum]

I suppose it would matter if I thought Joseph Smith was a prophet. Even then, I'm learning that there are people who are much more literal in their thinking than I ever was as a believer.

Your disbelief prevents you from giving the evidence a fair hearing. You can't (or won't) weigh what you automatically reject.

[John Williams]

Your disbelief prevents you from giving the evidence a fair hearing. You can't (or won't) weigh what you automatically reject.

I wouldn't say that. As I said, if I were a believer, I wouldn't care much because I'm not as much a literalist as you are. What would matter is whether such things were of God. I've already said that a literalist would have to either believe that Joseph restored ancient rituals or that he found truth in the Masonic ritual and adapted it. I always believed the latter, and I don't know why a literal interpretation is necessary.

[Helorum]

I find it more interesting to wonder what the Temple would be like if Joseph hadn't been a Mason at all, but instead was a Rotarian? Would we meet once a week for lunch and do service projects instead of endowments?

Of course there would be endowments just like today. God says right in D&C 124 that HE is going to restore that which was lost (and He clearly lists the endowment elements long BEFORE the Prophet became a Mason).

[John Williams]

Of course there would be endowments just like today. God says right in D&C 124 that HE is going to restore that which was lost (and he lists the endowment elements clearly long BEFORE the Prophet became a Mason).

Putting on my believer's hat, I think cinepro's question is a valid one: what was restored? I tend to think if anything was restored, it was principles. I don't believe that the endowment and other ceremonies necessarily were restored in the same form as in ancient practices. Is there some reason you can think of that we must believe that it was, word for word, restored from ancient practice?

[Helorum]

I don't know why a literal interpretation is necessary.

And that is why you are blind to reality.

A literal interpretation is necesary because God said it was literal in D&C 124 - - - which you don't believe because, as you stated in an earlier post, you DON'T believe that Joseph Smith was really a prophet.

No matter how much evidence is in Joseph Smith's favor (and there is a ton of it in regard to the temple) you simply won't believe because you choose not to weight the evidence without bias.

[Sargon]

The OP would be very grateful is someone who speaks spanish fluently would assist at the forum in question.

http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/...012&page=29

Sargon

[Helorum]

Is there some reason you can think of that we must believe that it was, word for word, restored from ancient practice?

I already provided a link to a book that provides a clear answer to this question. Reading this book might actually change some people's perspective, since the evidence is largely from non-LDS scholars.

[John Williams]

And that is why you are blind to reality.

A literal interpretation is necesary because God said it was literal in D&C 124 - - - which you don't believe because, as you stated in an earlier post, you DON'T believe that Joseph Smith was really a prophet.

No matter how much evidence is in Joseph Smith's favor (and there is a ton of it in regard to the temple) you simply won't believe because you choose not to weight the evidence without bias.

Horsehockey. Again, what in section 124 does God say was restored?

The OP would be very grateful is someone who speaks spanish fluently would assist at the forum in question.

http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/...012&page=29

Sargon

I speak Spanish fluently, but I doubt y'all want me helping out.

[John Williams]

I already provided a link to a book that provides a clear answer. Now it's time to go do some actual homework.

According to the book, it provides parallels between ancient ritual and modern temple worship. Is that what you're getting at?

[Helorum]

what in section 124 does God say was restored?

Crack open your scriptures, read the entire section very carefully, and then give us all a detailed report.

[John Williams]

Crack open your scriptures, read the entire section very carefully, and then give us all a detailed report.

I just reread it a few minutes ago. I don't see anything suggesting the hyperliteralist reading you're espousing. But I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time).

Of course, you're the one insisting on such an interpretation, so I'm wondering why you think I need to give you a detailed report. Back up your assertions (and referring to a book of parallels doesn't count).

[Helorum]

referring to a book of parallels doesn't count

Yeah . . . just ignore that huge stack of evidence lying over there.

I just reread [D&C 124] a few minutes ago. I don't see anything . . . But I could be wrong

I rest my case!!!

[John Williams]

I rest my case!!!

Ah, sarcasm, the last refuge of the beaten. LOL

[Helorum]

Ah, sarcasm, the last refuge of the beaten.

Or the last resort for dealing with people who don't really want to learn.

[John Williams]

Or the last resort for dealing with people who don't really want to learn.

Touche. I've asked you to back up your assertions, but so far, nothing doing.

[Helorum]

I've asked you to back up your assertions, but so far, nothing doing

.

Sorry, I can't help people who have trouble reading.

[John Williams]

.

Sorry, I can't help people who have trouble reading.

Let's see. I read the FAIR piece and section 124 and the intro to the Roper book, and yet I'm not convinced. So, obviously I have reading-comprehension problems.

I don't have a problem with your literalist reading of section 124. I'm just bewildered as to why you insist that I read it the same way you do.

Oh, well.